Would it be possible to design a video game like a deck of playing cards? A virtual world with characters, objects and artificial life but without an implied goal or ruleset. Perhaps, like many decks of cards, accompanied by a manual that proposes several different games that can be played within this environment. Somewhat similar to the way in which games like Quake and Halo allow for multiple types of multiplayer games with different objectives but set in the same environment and using the same characters and game objects. But without the application having to switch modes explicitly. Just like the pictures on the cards don’t change. The game to play would be entirely up to the player(s). Depending on how they act, the game would be different.
In a traditional computer game framework, one could think of a virtual world in which the player decides to play either an adventure game, an action game or a strategy game, depending on what they do in the world, perhaps on which studies their avatar takes and jobs they choose, for instance.
It would be even more interesting if the game itself would also have input so that somebody who sets out to be a soldier in the game ends up becoming a diplomat because the death of his wife made him allergic to aggression. The player of such a game would be required to actively suspend disbelief and really play his role in all earnesty, without trying to manipulate the game into becoming something pre-defined and expected. “Playing Cards Next Gen”: where the cards themselves can change the nature of the game.
hmmm… would be a bit like a MOO. but more elaborate. the LambdaMOO has less rules than what you are proposing though.
“The game to play would be entirely up to the player(s). Depending on how they act, the game would be different.
In a traditional computer game framework, one could think of a virtual world in which the player decides to play either an adventure game, an action game or a strategy game, depending on what they do in the world, perhaps on which studies their avatar takes and jobs they choose, for instance.”
Assuming I understand you, no, it wouldn’t be up to them. For example, how they act in the world? So there’s a world at all? Gravity? Distance? Things blocking the view of things? Types of studies? Types of jobs?
All of these are constraints on play – that means they don’t have absolute choice. In pure imagination, there doesn’t have to be a world or jobs or whatever to start from. Starting from a world is not starting from absolute control. It’s starting within the constraints of a preconceived idea.
I’m an advocate of constraints, actually – they are good, don’t get me wrong. But they do mean, of course, the player does not have absolute choice.
Interesting. You could certainly design a game like a deck of cards, where all that is defined by the game are objects to be used by whatever ruleset you decide on. But still, all the games would have to be luck, strategy or puzzle. I don’t see an adventure game or an action game fitting in to that format elegantly, since it’s not the rules that define those types of games. I mean, sure, you could throw cards up into the air and shoot them, but it seems like a misuse.
So if your idea were limited to just “games about rules” -luck, strategy, puzzle- then it’s a fine idea, and it can be moved forward past the point playing cards stop. If it tries to also include platformers, and RPGs, and games like The Endless Forest, then it’s a mess to begin with and adding on more complexity will only make it worse.
I wasn’t advocating absolute choice. Just a range of possibilities within a well authored environment.
I think that’s what Molyneux is always talking about (well still within some very predetermined genres like strategy or rpg) while failing to achieve it 😉
Games as playgrounds, in a way ?
That’s the only interesting thing I find in GTA. As games they’re boring, but they’re nice playgrounds…
That’s also why I like STALKER… it’s the only game I know that really developed that artificial life you’re mentioning, and which is a key point to escape from the Combines Curse (aka enemies as arbitrary obstacles).
It’s still certainly limited (all mostly-gunfight oriented that it is), but it makes a very interesting playground – especially if you’ve modded it to make the A-Life more free 😉
Thanks for that link Yhancik. An interesting interview and an interesting topic!
Well, surely you can’t fault me for reading “The game to play would be entirely up to the player(s).” as meaning the players have absolute choice.
Pretty much all games offer possiblities within a well authored evironment.
I have thought about something similar to this and what your talking about is what I call the the scale of authorship. I think there’s a gradient between the amount of authorship a player has and how much restrictions the game applies. The more authorship the player has the more the game becomes a toy. Just offering some tools without restriction the less the designer (of that game or toy) directs the experience. I’m not saying that that is a bad thing.
So to get back to your question, is it possible? Yeah, absolutely. I’m just not calling it a game any more, but that is just semantics in the end
Could a deck of cards be considered a toy?
I don’t know if i’d consider a deck of cards a toy, but it might not be a game either.
Of course, Will Wright calls a BALL a toy… but I wouldn’t necessarily. I feel weird calling a Ball a toy, a balls a ball. You do ball things with it. An action figure is a toy, but a model isn’t. I don’t think it really matters, lots of semantics really.
Yeah. It doesn’t really matter what we call these things. Not at this point in time, when these notions are in so much flux. Unless we imply some quality jugement, I guess. Both the words game and toy are often used in pejorative ways. There’s no need for that now.
It is semantics, but none the less it can make a difference in thought processes. I would call a deck of cards a toy(s), but in the end it is just a tool. Anything can be used to play games with; such as toys, but it can be anything as long as we can play with it. But with the complexity of a computer we may need other people to make our toys. I’m all in favour of toys, of things that allow me to experiment, fool around and enjoy myself.
That’s nice. And perfectly valid. But some people are seeking something different in the works made with this technology. It’s not because an interactive “thing” is not a game that it immediately becomes a toy. There’s many other possibilities outside of those categories. And I would even claim that many things that would fit within those categories can and are being used in different, perhaps unintended ways. And I think it is in those ways that we can find the true unique nature of this technology.
If a computer game would be designed with the potential of a deck of cards, it would become far more than a toy. If only because the cards could come to life!
It’s not just semantics, it’s how you deal with other people. If what you call it doesn’t match what the person your giving it to/selling it to, then it’s a breakdown in communication.
Communication is the lifeblood of stable society. It’s actually risky on a range of levels to fiddle around with.
Hmm, your right. My view on games and toys is really wide. With toys, I would say that they can be anything as long as they are designed for play, like building blocks, a set of dice or a deck of cards.
But to get back on the subject, can a game be like a deck of cards? And, are card really without rules? Maybe, but there at least some properties to cards; like that their arranged in suits, have values associated, are identical on one side and identifiable on the other, people can hold them, look at them, sort them, hide them, etcetera. How would this translate to our computer game? We need to have some sort of control over them, we need to be able to play with them. How much different would it need to be say from Little Big Planet? Does it need to allow more freedom? Neither of them allow all games to be made with them, but they both allow for a whole lot of games…
Then if the cards change so that they change the situation and the rules it would become irritating instead of interesting I think. People can not stand unfairness and where they might accept some in the real world they might not in the virtual. Hmm, but than again, you already said that the players should play their role in all earnesty…
I hate 52 pickup. But, on the other hand, it’s interesting to consider a game where people could throw it all to pieces and make other people pick up the mess. Wouldn’t be very fun for everyone, but it would be interesting.
It’s a good question though, given the chance how many people would vandalize and how many would work to keep everything clean?
Yes, this sounds a lot like my “anthorpomorphic miniature garden” idea of games, though not exactly.
I wonder, what about games as a deck of cards as in Magic: The Gathering? There, the rules are fixed, but modular, and the experience is different based on what cards come up, but you still have some choice in how you deploy them and influence what comes up in the future.
Squidi of the Three Hundred Mechanics project mentioned something rather similar in his discussion of Procedurally Generated Content Cards (Mechanic #057):
“Taking it even further, Magic the Gathering allows players to design their own decks out of their own choosing – in effect, creating a set of possibilities. The cards in these decks themselves come from sets themselves. For instance, a location card belongs to the set of all location cards and potentially a smaller subset of location cards that share some attributes. Ultimately, MtG is a game where you design your experience through a little bit of randomness, but mainly through the manipulation of sets.
So, if I wanted a computer to design a scifi rpg, couldn’t that be likened to a computer building a game using cards from a specific deck? Couldn’t you design entire games (or rather genres) simply by deciding which cards go into the deck? Absolutely. Ultimately, procedurally designing an entire world is a lot like playing Magic the Gathering. Structurally speaking, the process can be almost identical.”
It’s kind of the reverse, in that here the computer is generating a game out of cards the player selects, where we are interested in the player playing a game out of cards the game author selects, but it’s an interesting comparison.
Seems like the difference between something systematic and objective and something personal and subjective to me. I’m all for games becoming more subjective, both for the makers as for the players. Mr Squidi is right: a computer could design a game. Most games have a strange resemblance with spreadsheets and engines. But that’s not what I find interesting about them.